| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/16/2007 07:28:53 PM · #1 |
I bought the 17-40mm F/4 L from  Matto. Well I was wondering if it would be a good idea to sell it and buy the Canon 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5
My main thought is I already carry a 28-75 F/2.8 and was just thinking I would like to get a wide angle.
Any opinions to help me make a decision?
Message edited by author 2007-05-16 19:41:46.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2007 07:32:27 PM · #2 |
| I just got a 10-20mm....delivered yesterday. And I'm in love with its wideness. I think it probably depends on what you like to shoot though! Looks like it's gonna be great for landscapes and architecture. I'd recommend it. |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 07:32:57 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by rex:
I bought the 17-40mm F/4 L from [user]Matteo[/user]. Well I was wondering if it would be a good idea to sell it and buy the Canon 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5
My main thought is I already carry a 28-75 F/2.8 and was just thinking I would like to get a wide angle.
Any opinions to help me make a decision? |
I have the 17-40 and had the 10-22. Both are outstanding lenses. The big deciding factor is if you ever have plans to buy a full frame sensor camera (like the 5D). The 10-22 will not work on it, or the Mark II and Mark III cameras.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2007 07:36:09 PM · #4 |
no plans to buy another camera unless I happen to get rich soon. But I will keep the 30D for sure.
I was just thinking I may want the wide angle and was wondering how it done on portraits. I am planning on usuing it for some weddings I have scheduled if I get it. But will need to sell the 17-40 to fund the 10-22
|
|
|
|
05/16/2007 07:40:20 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by rex:
I bought the 17-40mm F/4 L from [user]Matteo[/user]. Well I was wondering if it would be a good idea to sell it and buy the Canon 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5
My main thought is I already carry a 28-75 F/2.8 and was just thinking I would like to get a wide angle.
Any opinions to help me make a decision? |
I have the 17-40 and had the 10-22. Both are outstanding lenses. The big deciding factor is if you ever have plans to buy a full frame sensor camera (like the 5D). The 10-22 will not work on it, or the Mark II and Mark III cameras. |
It's a great lens and a lot of fun, I say go for it.
(Edited after seeing previous post)
Message edited by author 2007-05-16 19:48:21. |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 07:41:35 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by rex:
no plans to buy another camera unless I happen to get rich soon. But I will keep the 30D for sure.
I was just thinking I may want the wide angle and was wondering how it done on portraits. I am planning on usuing it for some weddings I have scheduled if I get it. But will need to sell the 17-40 to fund the 10-22 |
I love WA. If I had a 1.6 crop factor the 10-22 would be attractive. Your decision depends on whether you want L lenses or WA more - sounds to me like you already decided you want the 10-22.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2007 07:43:31 PM · #7 |
The L doesn't mean much to me. I think my photos are good coming from the Tamron and the Canon 85mm. All of my model sessions are shot with those 2 lenses only. I was thinking buy the 10-22 sell the 17-40 and the 70-300 and buy the 70-200 F/4 L
|
|
|
|
05/16/2007 07:47:50 PM · #8 |
Hi rex,
I've used both lens'. The 10-22 while cool and wide, really sucks unless you can stop it down. Wide open its soft and if you plan on doing wide stuff for weddings I dont think you would be happy with it. The 17-40 on the other hand at F4 is sharp across the board. Main reason why when I bought I bought the lens you now have. Had I not needed to fund my new monster no way it would have left my possession. I think if you want a landscape lens and thats it, then the 10-22 is going to serve you well. If your going to want to do weddings with it, your going to be sorry you sold that L.
MattO |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 07:49:12 PM · #9 |
I'd recommend dropping all that Canon crap and switching over to the Nikon camp. Let me know if this helps.
E
|
|
|
|
05/16/2007 07:49:58 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
I'd recommend dropping all that Canon crap and switching over to the Nikon camp. Let me know if this helps.
E |
Yeah if you will buy all the Nikon shit for me rich man.
:)
Message edited by author 2007-05-16 19:50:13.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2007 07:53:43 PM · #11 |
| if you will be doing weddings use the 17-40mm, it has a constant aperature, the 10-22 ins't constant |
|
|
|
05/16/2007 09:17:37 PM · #12 |
Sorry, i didn't read all the respoonses...
The 17-40 at F4 is too slow for weddings. You can use the 28-70 until you get a 17-55 2.8 IS - IS kicks butt in low light wedding work! (handhold 1/10sec at 50mm!)
The 17-40 is slow (relatively speaking) and has limited range at 40.
The 10-22 rocks, and 3.5-4.5 is not bad - it's slower by 1/3 stop BUT with the 1/focal length rule 1/20 to 1/30 is easliy hand held so super fast is not needed at this focal length. It is NOT soft - if the other person is getting soft images it's a bad lens or user error. Stoping it down beyond F8 will cause issues with light hitting the sensor from too sharp an angle.
17 is not wide enough - well, once you see 10 it isn't. 10mm is 90 degree FOV - stand in the corner of a room and ALL the walls, the floor and the ceiling are in the picture. Sometimes your feet too :D
All of these //www.pbase.com/cpphotography/naias_2007_detroit images were taken with the 10-22 - in a crowded show, but you can get about 18" from a car and get the whole car in the pic so no one is standing in front of you.
Message edited by author 2007-05-16 21:18:58.
|
|
|
|
05/16/2007 09:38:43 PM · #13 |
I think you should go with the 10-22 and sell the 17-40 to me :) :) :)
|
|
|
|
05/17/2007 04:48:59 AM · #14 |
Keep 17-40, sell 30D, buy 5D. Now your FF-oriented lenses will work as intended, problem solved :).
Only half joking - the lenses you have (17-40 + 28-75) are a very nice WA + standard zoom combination for a FF camera. As others have pointed out a better combination for the crop camera would be the 10-22 and 17-55 f/2.8 IS - but if you then make the upgrade to full frame those lenses won't work with it.
The 5D is generally regarded as THE wedding camera, too...
splidge
|
|
|
|
05/17/2007 07:11:04 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by splidge:
Keep 17-40, sell 30D, buy 5D. Now your FF-oriented lenses will work as intended, problem solved :).
Only half joking - the lenses you have (17-40 + 28-75) are a very nice WA + standard zoom combination for a FF camera. As others have pointed out a better combination for the crop camera would be the 10-22 and 17-55 f/2.8 IS - but if you then make the upgrade to full frame those lenses won't work with it.
The 5D is generally regarded as THE wedding camera, too...
splidge |
I agree with this - the L glass does make a difference on the larger and higher res sensor.
|
|
|
|
05/17/2007 08:20:01 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by splidge:
The 5D is generally regarded as THE wedding camera, too...
splidge |
Nope. For formals maybe. for studio work, yep.
For weddings a 1Dn Mk2 or the new Mk3 are what you need/want. You don't need 12mp for weddings - large files cost money (space, time). The 1D has faster FPS, teh mk3 as good or better noise at high iso, and the reason you want this it the focus system, 2 card capability, and teh cFn's allow more instant switching from one group of settings to another - the new Mk3 has 5 custom WB settings! But you can do one button changes for ISO/WB/focus area, etc -handy.
The new mk3 is to die for! It had a polaroid-size LCD! awesome.
|
|
|
|
05/17/2007 08:32:13 AM · #17 |
| I recently tried a friends 10-20 on my 350D. Considering the 1.6 crop factor, I was very impressed with the field of view. We were out at night though doing some long exposure shots and it did suffer from some flare effects from street lighting etc. It didn't have a hood however, which may have helped eliminate this? |
|
|
|
05/17/2007 09:01:20 AM · #18 |
Thanks for all the advice. As I said earlier in this thread. I have no plans to buy another camera. I love my 30D and don't see the point in buying a 5D or a 1DMarkIII. I make very little at this hobby and don't want to make lots or else it will turn into a job. I love getting days to go shoot and if I do that everyday then eventually I will hate it when it comes time to pick up the camera. And if I spend all the money on that stuff I will have to justify it by making more money. Either way I think I have decided to keep the 17-40.
Message edited by author 2007-05-17 09:01:46.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2007 03:02:42 AM · #19 |
| the 10-22mm lense isn't all that flattering to any people that might be in your wedding photos anyway. other than that it is a great lense to have. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 08:05:44 PM EDT.
